Similar Documents at Perry |
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212J1581999-09-30030 September 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Agreement. Orders That License Transfer Approved,Subj to Listed Conditions ML20205D4901999-02-22022 February 1999 Transcript of 990222 Informal Public Hearing on 10CFR2.206 Petition in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-105.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20155F4561998-08-26026 August 1998 Demand for Info Re False Info Allegedly Provided by Wh Clark to Two NRC Licensees.Nrc Considering Whether Individual Should Be Prohibited from Working in NRC-licensed Activities for Period of 5 Yrs ML20236V5261998-07-20020 July 1998 Computer Access & Operating Agreement Between Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & NRC PY-CEI-NRR-2284, Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal1998-05-21021 May 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal ML20216B5111998-04-0909 April 1998 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty.Denies Request for Remission of Violation C,Ea 97-430 & Orders Licensee to Pay Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000 within Next 30 Days PY-CEI-NRR-2269, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective1998-04-0303 April 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective ML20216G3821998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Duquesne Light Co & Allegheny Power Systems,Inc ML20217J0661998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Dqe, Inc & Allegheny Power System,Inc ML20198P9311997-11-0707 November 1997 Comments of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc.NRC Should Require Allegheny Power Sys,Inc to Affirm That Capco Antitrust License Conditions Will Be Followed ML20134L3401997-01-22022 January 1997 Resolution 96-R-85, Resolution Supporting Merger of Centerior Energy Corp & Ohio Edison Under New Holding Co Called Firstenergy ML20133B6941996-12-18018 December 1996 Submits Ordinance 850-96 Re Approval of Merger of Centerior & Oh Edison Into Firstenergy ML20135F4731996-12-0606 December 1996 Memorandum & Order CLI-96-13.* Commission Reverses & Vacates ASLB LBP-95-17 Which Granted Motion for Summary Disposition Submitted by Ocre & Hiatt.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961206 ML20132A8461996-12-0202 December 1996 Resolution 20-1996 Supporting Merger of Ohio Edison & Centerior Corp Under New Holding Company Called Firstenergy ML20134M6191996-10-28028 October 1996 Proclamation of Support by City of Sandusky,Oh Re Merger of Ohio Edison and Centerior Energy Corp ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20108D9571996-05-0303 May 1996 CEI Response to City of Cleveland 2.206 Petition.Nrc Should Deny Petition ML20108B7571996-04-26026 April 1996 Licensee Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* Recommends That Commission Reverse Board Memorandum & Order Issued 951004.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List PY-CEI-NRR-2034, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl1996-03-11011 March 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20097B8911996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement or in Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures ML20096E2471996-01-0303 January 1996 Comment on PRM 50-64 Re Stockpiling Ki for Use as Thyroid Protectant in Event of Nuclear Accident.Supports Distribution of Ki to Public ML20094N1951995-11-17017 November 1995 Oh Edison Application for License Transfer in Connection W/ Sale & Related Transactions ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6341994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20064N9201994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition. W/Svc List ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059L9391993-11-12012 November 1993 Petitioners Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Court Held That NRC May Not Eliminate Public Participation on Matl Issue in Interest of Making Process More Efficient. W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1421993-10-19019 October 1993 Order.* Petitioners Shall File Supplemental Petition in Accordance W/Schedule in 931018 Order.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 931020 ML20059B1761993-10-18018 October 1993 Order.* Informs That for Each Contention,Petitioners Shall Comply Fully W/Requirements of 10CFR2.714(b)(2)(i),(ii) & (III) & Their Filing Should Address Requirements Set Forth in Regulations.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931019 ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20058M8761993-09-30030 September 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-21.* Appeal for Hearing Re Amend to Plant OL Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930930 ML20057C0461993-09-21021 September 1993 Supplemental Director'S Decision DD-93-15 Involving 920929 Request for Certain Actions to Be Taken Re Proposed Construction of Interim onsite,low-level Radioactive Waste Facility at Plant.Request Denied ML20056C8951993-07-19019 July 1993 Order Extending Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of LBP-92-32.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 930720 ML20045B5661993-06-0707 June 1993 Comment Re Proposed Generic Communication on Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans,As Published in Fr on 930401 (58FR17293).Believes Concept of Technical Review Not Addressed by STS ML20044E2781993-05-13013 May 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercise from Annual to Biennial ML20127A6171993-01-0606 January 1993 Order.* Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of Board Order LBP-92-32,dtd 921118,extended Until 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930106 ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc 1999-09-30
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D4761992-12-22022 December 1992 Alabama Electric Cooperative Answer to Applicants Petitions for Review.* Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A5871992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review ASLB 921118 decision,LBP-92-32.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underplanning of Statute.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A5751992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review LBP-92-32, 921118 Board Decision in Proceeding.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underpinning of Statute.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A7651992-11-18018 November 1992 Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* City of Cleveland Petition for Review Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4671992-11-16016 November 1992 Licensee Response to Lake County Commissioners 10CFR2.206 Petition.* Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116E7941992-09-29029 September 1992 Petition for Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Const of Low Level Radwaste at Perry Plant.* Requests Public Hearing Be Held Prior to Const of Storage Site & Const Should Be Suspended Until NRC or Util Produces EIS on Risks ML20101N5131992-07-0808 July 1992 City of Cleveland Opposition to Applicant Request That Licensing Board Disregard Certain Arguments of City of Cleveland Counsel in Oral Argument.Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20101N6401992-07-0707 July 1992 Reply by American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc to Applicant Request That Board Disregard Factual Issues.* Applicant Requests Board Disregard Irrelevant Assertions by All Parties.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101K2101992-06-29029 June 1992 Applicants Request That Licensing Board Disregard Factual Issues Discussed During Oral Argument.* Foregoing Issues Represent Factual Issues Which Board Should Disregard in Disposition of Phase One of Case.W/Certificate of Svc ML20098D5181992-05-26026 May 1992 Reply of City of Cleveland,Oh to Arguments of Applicants & NRC Staff W/Respect to Issues of Law of Case,Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel & Laches.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090F4261992-03-31031 March 1992 Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor,City of Cleveland,Oh & Answer in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* City of Cleveland,Oh & Applicant Motions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094K3791992-03-18018 March 1992 Applicants Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule.* Applicants Request That Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J2891992-03-0909 March 1992 Response of DOJ to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges ASLB to Resolve Bedrock Legal Issue in Negative & Concludes That Commission Possess Legal Authority to Retain License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091N1241992-01-24024 January 1992 Applicants Answer to Cleveland Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Applicants Have No Objection to Request for Opportunity to Submit Reply.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087E7821992-01-16016 January 1992 Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Cleveland Requests That Motion Be Granted & 911114 Order Establishing Schedule for Motions for Summary Disposition Be Amended.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086U5371992-01-0606 January 1992 Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Requests That Board Grant Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition Due to Lack of NRC Authority to Retain Antitrust License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J4821991-12-31031 December 1991 Reply Brief of City of Cleveland,Oh in Support of Notice of Appeal of Prehearing Conference Order Granting Request for Hearing.* Appeal Should Be Granted,Ref to Board Revoked & Applications Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9231991-12-27027 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply & Reply to Applicants Answer to City Motion for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3001991-12-24024 December 1991 Applicant Answer to Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision. * W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H7161991-12-19019 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N4601991-12-17017 December 1991 Licensees Response to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc & SL Hiatt Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Determines That Intervenor Failed to Demonstrate Interest in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086J4741991-12-0909 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply Brief.* Motion to File Reply Should Be Granted for Listed Reasons ML20086G4001991-11-26026 November 1991 Ohio Edison Co Motion for Reconsideration.* Util Respectfully Requests That NRC Vacate CLI-91-15 & Direct Forthwith Answer to Licensee Motion to Compel.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079Q0301991-11-0606 November 1991 Oec Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Respond to Interrogatories.* Util Moves Board to Compel NRC to Respond Completely,Explicitly & Properly to Licensee Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B5841991-09-0606 September 1991 Licensee Answer to Oh Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Ocre Has Shown No Interest in Proceeding.W/Notice of Appearance,Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20076D1611991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc (AMP-Ohio) for Leave to Intervene.* Util Does Not Object to Admission of AMP-Ohio as Intervenor on Basis of Status as Beneficiary.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0481991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric & Toledo Edison to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio for Leave to Intervene.* Utils Believe That 910703 Petition Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20081K8961991-06-20020 June 1991 Alabama Electric Cooperative Reply to Oppositions Filed to Petition to Intervene.* Informs of Util Intention to Assure Vindication of Proper Legal Principle.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2391991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland,Ohio,To Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene.* ML20079D2211991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland, Oh to Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene in Event Hearing Requested & Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2161991-06-14014 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Petition of Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc for Leave to Intervene.* AEC Has Not Met Burden of Satisfying Regulatory & Common Law Requirements.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-11-09
[Table view] |
Text
a '
o DOCMETED USNRC September 22, 19882 EP 23 sd8
@CE,0(p!E s~
..n .
C:: in "
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
j Units 1 and 2) )
)
4 APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO OHIO CITIZENS
- FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY " MOTION TO SEVER THE PNPP UNIT 2 OL PROCEEDING FROM THAT OF UNIT 1"
! By Motion of September 7, 1982, Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("OCRE") requests the Licensing Board to
- sever Unit'2 from this proceeding. OCRE bases its Motion on four arguments
- that the " completion date" of Unit 2 has been 1
delayed until 1991; that new legal and technological develop-ments may occur; that additional construction deficiencies may be discovered in Unit 2; and that Unit 2 has not been consid-i ered by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS").
i l
i B209240164 820922 l PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 PDR
- 3 S03
o o
Each of these arguments is without merit. Moreover, OCRE in effect asks the Licensing Board to initiate a new and indepen-dent licensing proceeding - something the Licensing Board lacks authority to do. Finally, OCRE's Motion seeks to have the Licensing Board preempt the Commission on an issue that is now being considered by the Commission in a rulemaking proceeding.
For these reasons, the Motion should be denied.
Although the Motion is conspicuously silent on the history of this issue, this is the third time that intervenors have asked the Licensing Board to sever Unit 2 from this proceeding. In its petition for leave to intervene, Sunflower Alliance, Inc. (" Sunflower") challenged the tandem licensing of Units 1 and 2 as " improper" and " contrary to safety considera-tions." As in OCRE's Motion, Sunflower contended that the delay between completion of construction of Unit 1 and Unit 2 1
required that the units be licensed in separate proceedings.
The Licensing Board rejected Sunflower's argument, observing that "a license would not be issued for Unit 2 until the' Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation determined that it had met the standards of 10 C.F.R. S 50.57; and that those findings require, among other things, that the facility be
'substantially completed.'" Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-81-24, 14 N . R .~ C . 175, 209 (1981) (Special Prehearing Conference i
.- - r _ , _ , . ,- __ - - - _ _ . _ - - . .
y.-__ ,
Memorandum and Order). The Licensing Board also noted that if I
there were any issues specific to Unit 2 that remained pending, the Licensing Board could retain jurisdiction of the licensing proceeding.
Sunflower objected to the Licensing Board's ruling on tandem licensing and asked for reconsideration. By Memorandum and Order of September 9, 1981, the Licensing Board denied the objection with the following explanation.
Sunflower has not persuaded us that it is necessary to divide this proceeding into two at this time. However, as the proceeding draws to a close, Sunflower will be provided with the opportunity to argue that it has pending contentions which must be resolved before the Board can recommend that an Oper-i ating License be issued for Perry Unit 2, which is still in early stages of construc-tien. At that time, issues which are unique to Unit 2 will not have been adjudicated and Sunflower will have a full and fair opportu-nity to prevail on this argument.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-35, 14 N.R.C. 682, 685 (1981).
OCRE now asks the Licensing Board to consider the issue of tandem licensing a third time. Like the preceding attempts, this one too should be rejected. The same logic which war-ranted denial the first two times compels denial again.
The first basis which OCRE cites as support for its motion is Applicants' July 21, 1982 application to amend the construction permits for the Perry reactors. The application j :
.- ~
_- ~ - -
4 requested that the latest dates for completion of construction specified in the permits be changed from December, 1982 and June, 1984 for Units 1 and 2, respectively, to November, 1985 and Movember, 1991. OCRE apparently misunderstands the nature and purpose of this application. The requested extension does not mean that completion of the units has been deferred until the requested dates. All that the applications seek is to extend the latest date for completion of each of the units.1/
This is being done to account for possible time contingencies that may extend the completion dates beyond Applicants' present estimates.
Applicants are not predicting (or conceding) that Unit 2 will not be completed until 1991. Indeed, as stated in the application, Applicants' scheduled date of commercial operation for Unit 2 remains May, 1988. The fuel load date for Unit 2 remains May, 1987. OCRE's suggestions that Unit 2 may be delayed beyond 1991 or even cancelled, Motion at 1, are sheer speculation. ~
Even assuming that OCRE's reading of the application to amend the construction permits is correct - which it is not the relief which OCRE requests is wholly inappropriate. The 1/ Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 2235,
' requires construction permits to specify the earliest and latest dates for completion of construction. See also 10 C.F.R. $ 50.55.
t
scope of this proceeding has been defined by the Commission to include both Perry Units 1 and 2. The Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, by which this proceeding was commenced, provided for an opportunity for hearing on Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. 46 Fed. Reg. 12372 (February 13, 1981). See also Notice of Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Preside in Proceeding. 46 Fed. Reg. 20340 (April 3, 1981). The Licensing Board's jurisdiction is governed by the notice of opportunity for hearing 2/ That notice calls for a proceeding on both Perry units, not two separate proceedings.
A licensing board's actions "can neither enlarge nor contract the jurisdiction conferred by the Commission." Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-235, 8 A.E.C. 645, 647 (1974). Bifurcating the two dockets and establishing a separate operating license proceeding for Unit 2 is outside the scope of the Licensing Board's jurisdiction.3/
2/ Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-619, 12 N.R.C. 558, 565 (1980);
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Carroll County Site), ALAB-601, 12 N.R.C. 18, 24 (1980); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 170-171 (1976).
3/ "[L)icensing boards have no independent authority to ini-tiate any form of adjudicatory proceeding." Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-381, 5 N.R.C. 582, 592 (1977).
o OCRE's requested relief - bifurcation of the pro-ceeding - is also inconsistent with well established NRC practice.
It has been the Commission's long-standing practice !
to afford a single opportunity for hearing with respect to multi-unit plants at the operating license stage. This practice dates back at least as far as the Federal Register Notice published in connection with the proposed issuance of operating licenses for Florida Power & Light Company's Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, 36 Fed. Reg. 20,906 (1971).
This long-standing practice is perfectly appropriate r
in this case. As is clear from the Final Safety Analysis Report and the Safety Evaluation Report (as well as comparable construction permit stage documents), Perry Units 1 and 2 are identical. Any safety issues presented are equally applicable to both units. OCRE has failed to suggest one litigable issue that would more appropriately be considered in two separate proceedings.
I OCRE nonetheless insists that it is "' improper" to l
l conduct -a' licensing proceeding for Unit 2 at this time because l of possible intervening changes in technology, new Commission i
I regulations, yet-to-be-enacted Congressional legislation, and future court cases. Of course, some or all of these may occur.
Such changes cannot be ruled out with any more certainty than they can be predicted. But nowhere does Commission regulation
! l
-_ . - -_. ._ - . .. -_ . - . - - . .= - . .- -.
}
or practice suggest that these possibilities justify a separate '
proceeding for Unit 2.
Indeed, it would be a tremendous waste of the Commission's and Applicants' (and even intervenors') resources for there to be two separate proceedings. OCRE's suggestion that severing Unit 2 from the proceeding will save "a great amount of expense and effort for all parties" is simply incredulous. Such duplication of effort is particularly unjustified where the only harms alleged by OCRE are grounded in mere speculation.
1 OCRE also maintains that bifurcation is necessary I
because "[u]ndoubtedly deficiencies in [ future Unit 2] con-
- struction will occur"4/ and "these problems must be addressed publicly within the hearing structure provided by NRC's rules of practice." Motion at 2. This argument evidences a misunderstanding of the purpose of an operating license hearing. It is not intended as a device to monitor the construction of the plant. Intervenors are neither equipped 4 nor empowe' red to function as quality assurance inspectors. To the extent that OCRE alleges deficiencies in Applicants'
- quality assurance program, it already has the opportunity
)
! available to raise those issues.
i 4/ While considerable construction remains, Unit 2 is now l over 43% complete. See " Final Environmental Statement Related l to the Operation of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,"
NUREG-0884 (August, 1982), p.v.
t
If new issues were to arise during the interval !
i between the in-service dates of the two Perry units, several "
mechanisms exist for their consideration. The Licensing Board has already identified one mechanism in twice denying bifurca-tion of this proceeding. The motion to reopen is, as recog-nized by OCRE, another option.
(If the future problems with Unit 2 are as dire as OCRE predicts, it should have no dif-ficulty meeting the Commission's standards for reopening.) A I
request for an order to show cause pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.206 is another possibility. All of this is in addition to the Staff's statutory and regulating responsibilities. The operating license for Unit 2 cannot L: issued until the Commission has determined that the plant has been properly 1
constructed and substantially completed, and that all current safety and environmental requirements have been met.
OCRE's final argument for severing Unit 2 is that the ACRS did not issue an evaluation of Perry Unit 2. OCRE argues 4
- that, according to Duke Power Company (McGuire' Nuclear Station, 1
Units 1.and 2), LBP-77-20, 5 N.R.C. 680 (1977), the Board i
cannot decide any safety issues for Unit 2 until the ACRS letter is issued, and that chis will unnecessarily delay the proceeding for several years.
OCRE misunderstands the import of the McGuire ruling, at least in part due to the decision's lack of clarity. In i
, _ _ . - _ _ - _ . _ - , - _ - _ . _ _ . . - ~
that case, Applicants moved for summary disposition on two safety issues at a time when neither the Staff's Safety 7
Evaluation Report nor the ACRS letter had been issued. The i
motion was denied. As stated by the licensing board, It is denied on the safety related issues 4
because the Staff's safety review is not
, complete.
5 N.R.C. at 683. OCRE's reading of the case apparently stems from an earlier statement by the board.
) '
As the Staff has noted in its argu-ment, contentions 3 and 4 are safety matters involving operations under the proposed operating license and the finan-i cial ability of the Applicant to operate the facility safely. The Staff Cafety Evaluation Report (SER) and the opinion of i the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety "
, (ACRS Report) have not been issued.
Accordingly, these two matters involving safety issues are not appropriate for summary disposition at this time. However, if changed circumstance can be-shown, such matters are open for reexamination at the operating licensing stage, though pre-viously litigated between the parties.
Power Reactor Development Co. v. Int. Union of Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1960).
5 N.R.C. at 681. It is also worth noting that the McGuire licensing board subsequently characterized its denial of summary disposition in yet a third way.
I Applicant's motion for summary disposition on the safety-related issues was denied because such issues may be reexamined at the operating license stage though pre-viously litigated between parties, if changed circumstances can be shown. Power Reactor Development Company v. Interna-tional Union of Electrical Workers,'367 U.S. 396 (1960).
(
Duke Power Co. (McGuire Station, Units 1 and 2), Initial Decision, LBP-79-13, 9 N.R.C. 489, 491 (1979).
Based on this history, one cannot draw any conclusion from the decision cited by OCRE.
Since the Perry SER has been issued and since the ACRS letter addresses the substance of Unit 2 (since the two units are identical), there is no justification for arbitrarily splitting this proceeding in half.
OCRE's argument concerning the ACRS letter merely presumes that the ACRS letter for Unit 2 will not be forthcoming "until 1991 or beyond." Motion at 3. Here again OCRE is engaging in sheer speculation. At the very least, the Board should, as it suggested in its September 9, 1981 Order, wait until the proceeding draws to a close before deciding whether the matter of the ACRS letter or any other issue still is pending with respect to Unit 2.
In any event, the Licensing Board can decide Unit 2 safety issues (if there were any) in the absence of a Unit 2 ACRS letter. The limited status of the ACRS report is well established. It is procedural step in the licensing process.
A licensing board may rely on the ACRS' conclusions only in uncontested cases and in contested cases with respect to uncontroverted issues. 10 C.F.R. 2, App. A, SS V(f)(1) and (2). As the Appeal Board has explained:
i 4
[S)ince the persons responsible for the report (the members of the ACRS) are not subject to being examined by the parties or the Board with reference to its contents, the report cannot be treated as having been admitted into evidence for the truth of any of the statements therein. Rather, its introduction into the record must be deemed to be for the limited purpose of establishing compliance with the requirements of the statute.
Arkansas Power and Light Company (Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2),
ALAB-94, 6 A.E.C. 25, 32 (1973).
Accord, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-217, 8 A.E.C. 61, 75 (1974).
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123, 6 A.E.C. 331, 339-40 (1973). Thus, nothing in the regulations requires that the ACRS report be admitted into evidence at any particular time in an operating license proceeding. See 10 C.F.R.
$$ 2.102(b) and (c), 2.743(g), and 50.58.
Finally, Applicants point out that there is pending before the Commission a petition for rulemaking concerning tandem licensing. Docket No. PRM-2-11. See Notice of Petition for Rulemaking, 47 Fed. Reg. 4310 (Jan. 29, 1982). It would be inappropriate for the Licensing Board to grant OCRE's Motion to sever this operating license proceeding before the Commission has disposed of the petition. A determination on the petition i
will undoubtedly shed light on the question of conducting separate operating license hearings for each unit at a nuclear l
l
plant site. OCRE's concern with the tandem licensing of Unit 2 applies equally to any other multiple-unit nuclear plant. If OCRE's arguments were adopted, the NRC could never conduct multi-unit proceedings; and that is a question for the Commission to decide.
For all of the above reasons, Applicants respectfully request that the Board deny OCRE's motion.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: W M# ,
JagE. S lberg, P.C. ff U
' O D, L. Willmore Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated: September 22, 1982 e
. _ _ _ . - . . . . . . = - _ - . . . .. . . - . -. - __ -. - -. . . - - -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
TIIE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) .
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' i
j Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ' Motion to Sever the PNPP Unit 2 OL Proceeding from that of Unit l'", were served by deposit in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of September 1982, to all those on the attached
! Service List.
O 1
\A o WG Jayj /E. Silbekg Dated: September 22, 1982 1 4
i
~
- NUf...::AR REGULATORY COMMISSION' Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket No.l. 50-440
' ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. ) 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2 )'
SERVICE LIST --
Atomic Safety and Licensing Peter 3. Bloch, Chairman .
Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Jerry R. Kline Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board p.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Washington, D.C. 20555- .
Washington, D.C. 20555
!$. Frederick J. Shon Stephen _H. Leyis ,.. Esquire ._ _ __
Office of,the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wahsington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Ms.~ Sue Hiatt Atonde Safety and Licensing OCRE Interim Representative Appeal Board 8275 Munson Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mentor, Ohio 44060 Washington, D.C. 20555 Daniel D. Wilt, Esquire Dr. John H. Buck P. O. Box 08159 Atomic Safety and Licensing Cleveland, Ohio 44108 Acceal Board U.E. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Donald.T. E: zone, Esquire Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Gary J. Edles, Esquire Lake County Administration Center Atomic Safety and Licensin9 105 Center Street Appeal Board Painesville, Ohio 44077 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John G. Cardinal', Esquire Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safetv and Licensing
- Ashtabula County Courthouse Board Panel Jefferson, Onlo 44047 U.S. Suclear Regulatory Commission Washinc:en, D.C. 20555 Terry Lodge, Esquire 915 Spitzer Building Toledo, Ohio 43604